Jump to content

Care to share your resources and data about the M2k performance?


bkthunder

Recommended Posts

It's obviously just a matter of one or the other trying at all costs to prove that the M2000 is "overpowered". It doesn't matter at all what a dev says and how he proves their results. He/they (Razbam) is/are wrong and the M2000C is "too good" because that is "well known"...🤦🏽‍♂️


Edited by felixx75
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2023 at 3:09 PM, bkthunder said:

We don't know how the Mirage should perform due to lack of public documents, however we have plenty of literature, intrviews, heresay that the Mirage 2000 has a phenomenal ITR and a relatively poor STR.

That would be a good approach if you could find interviews with pilots that have extensive recent experience flying both aircraft. I am not aware that such things exist.

The perspective of a pilot that's only flown one isn't especially useful and neither is the account of some that hasn't flown for a considerable period, human memory is extremely fallible (the chap that runs realsimulator regularly has ex-viper pilots telling him that the stick forces are too high, he used to argue with them but now just invites them to try the real unit he has in his work shop (much higher forces than his consumer grade unit))


Edited by Scott-S6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/25/2023 at 6:39 AM, Scott-S6 said:

That would be a good approach if you could find interviews with pilots that have extensive recent experience flying both aircraft. I am not aware that such things exist.

The perspective of a pilot that's only flown one isn't especially useful and neither is the account of some that hasn't flown for a considerable period, human memory is extremely fallible (the chap that runs realsimulator regularly has ex-viper pilots telling him that the stick forces are too high, he used to argue with them but now just invites them to try the real unit he has in his work shop (much higher forces than his consumer grade unit))

 

Another approach that would help validate the approach used to interpolate aircraft performance from these listed procedures is use the same method to generate a rough flight model for another aircraft with much better documented performance (like say, an F-16 variant, or better yet, another delta wing aircraft), and then compare the model's issues with the known flight test data for it and see if those same complaints are being levied against the Mirage.  If there's an underlying issue in the procedure used to build the flight model, it would likely show up in both.


Edited by Hextopia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hextopia said:

Another approach that would help validate the approach used to interpolate aircraft performance from these listed procedures is use the same method to generate a rough flight model for another aircraft with much better documented performance (like say, an F-16 variant, or better yet, another delta wing aircraft), and then compare the model's issues with the known flight test data for it and see if those same complaints are being levied against the Mirage.  If there's an underlying issue in the procedure used to build the flight model, it would likely show up in both.

 

Yes, that could produce some interesting results 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/5/2023 at 4:09 PM, bkthunder said:

Fact is:

The DCS Mirage 2000 performs better than the DCS F-16.

The conclusions can be two: 

1. This is not correct because it's contrary to common knowledge and heresay about how the M2000 should perform.

2. This is correct and realisitc, and all that has been written and said so far about the Mirage is bulls**t.

Sorry to dig this old topic (we will see if it is locked again)... What I hear (read) appear to be (no offense) frustated people discovering the F-16 (or F-18) is not the king of the airs they thought, and come here to request the Mirage 2000 to be "Nerfed".

First thing, the truth is not necessarily 1 OR 2, but can also be something in-between. Secondely, we know, by experience, that the Mirage 2000 is,in the mind of many people, a kind of "super Mig-21" or "modernized Mirage III", and have hard to swallow pill when they discover this is NOT, absolutely NOT.

1. You use the words "contrary" and "heresy", however, be nuanced. DCS Mirage 2000 is currently close to the well know public performance chart, that it was said to be probably inaccurate and probably, intentionally pessimistic. Maybe the DCS F-16 need adjustements, maybe the DCS Mirage 2000 is not perfectly accurate, but there is nothing like as "contrary" or "heresy".

2. What "written" things are you talking about, this is pretty vague ? Despite what you seem to arg, the Mirage 2000 is known to be a very serrious oppoment to the F-16, and there is, afaik, no source that tell one is frankly superior than the other (especially in BFM context), because both aircrafts are very capables and agiles.

If you take the raw numbers, the F-16 have better thrust to weight ratio, and maybe, if you trust some available charts, a better STR, ok, but this does not do all the thing. F-16 and Mirage 2000 have very different aerodynamic design, each have their advandtages and weakeneses, Mirage 2000 can take advantage of F-16 weakeneses and F-16 can take advantage of the Mirage 2000 weakeneses. For example, the Mirage 2000 is known to have a better ITR than the F-16, with the prejudice of bleeding more energy doing so. The F-16 vs Mirage 2000 scenario is tipically a case where pilot (and luck) make the difference, because both aircraft are very good. The Mirage 2000 is known to be, with the F-16, in top list of very manoeuvrable and dangerous dogfighters aircrafts of the 80-90's. Mirage 2000 is known to be a direct competitor to the F-16. This is mirrored (maybe not perfectly) in DCS... deal with it.


Edited by sedenion
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

never wrote the word "heresy", but heresay, and I actually meant hearsay (spelling mistake, my bad)...

Which well known public performance chart are you talking about? Hopefully not the one from Northrop, because there is a big difference between that and the DCS performance.

 

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bkthunder said:

Which well known public performance chart are you talking about? Hopefully not the one from Northrop, because there is a big difference between that and the DCS performance.

Ok, I am not competent enough to judge precisely the curves. There are differences, but the Mirage 2000 was not turned into a Rafale (STR of 27 °/s for the Rafale), it still a Mirage 2000... Maybe the Mirage 2000 is not what so many people had beleived (while many people think the F-16 is the best fighter of all the times). Maybe the STR of the Mirage 2000 in DCS is a bit overperforming, maybe the DCS F-16 is little underpeforming.

The rest of what I said still valid. There is, afaik, no source that can tell which one from Mirage 2000 and the F-16 is the best in BFM context, and the two aircraft had met together numerous times. Find an F-16 pilot that can tell you the Mirage 2000 is easy to catch, I doubt you'll find any. In the other hand, Mirage 2000 pilots seem to not particularly fear the F-16 (no more than any other high maneuverability aircraft). Both are serious oppoment for each other. You are in a F-16 or F-18 in DCS, you meet a Mirage 2000 for dogfight, take the threat seriousely, your are facing a dangerous machine, not a flying "french baguette".


Edited by sedenion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Hello guys, I just have a little question regarding the VNE of the M2000C.

In the post on page one I can see the VNE graph starting at ~M1.17 (0m, @ISA), which seems to reflect the current behaviour of the DCS module.
Where does the VNE graph start for the real aircraft? I'm just curious.

Thank you!
 


Edited by TOViper

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Without any charts you see plenty of comparisons betwean Mig 29 and M2k, there is plenty of pilots interview who participated in excercies against M2k in doghfights, they ALL say that M2k is not a king of dogfighting, that mirages were losing against Mig-29 with much less experianced pilots in Mig 29's, but of course we have to trust charts that have source "trust me bro" or "classified" and are against popular knowladge, and against common sense based on m2k thrust to weight compered to aircrafts of it's era.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ramius007 said:

Without any charts you see plenty of comparisons betwean Mig 29 and M2k, there is plenty of pilots interview who participated in excercies against M2k in doghfights, they ALL say that M2k is not a king of dogfighting, that mirages were losing against Mig-29 with much less experianced pilots in Mig 29's.

Could you cite your sources please?

There is as far as I know a single source telling this, the 1988 IAF tests that are story-told by a MiG-29 IAF pilot. If that's your only source, "plenty of comparisons" and "plenty of pilots" is dishonnest, so I'm interested if you have more (but I doubt as this kind of exercises has been extremely rare).

That story is told by a MiG-29 expert, so maybe it's biased? Pilots are sometimes very biased (and this includes Mirage pilots).

Then, it's also known that in 1988 the Mirages 2000 had the old M53-5 engine which has very large thrust difference (-15% dry, -30% AB, from memory, to be confirmed) with our own M53-P2.

And finally, if this was true (Citing the articles : "The MiG-29 outperforms any 4th gen aircraft in instantaneous turn rate"), the MiG-29 DCS flight model, from the FC3 era, is maybe not 100% accurate, if we do the same comparison between the DCS MiG-29 and other DCS 4th gens. We don't do flight models by reading stories and trying to reproduce them against other DCS modules, but by focusing on the aircraft we model, and only this one.

 


Edited by Kercheiz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FC3 Mig 29 FM is good enaugh to be used in future FF Mig 29, it was recent ED employe statemant, as for my sources, one is mentioned IAF training in Indian media, another one are training betwean Czech and French air forces shortly after Soviet Union callapse, so yeah, possible those were odler engines, sadly i may struggle now to give you link, but short story was that despite lack of dogfighting traning in Mig 29's, Czech pilots menaged to be more than competetive vs seasoned Mirage pilots, same source was also claiming that Mig 23's otoh were much worse than Mirages F-1's in doghfights btw, so no supprise, original source was quote of Czech aviation magazine, and was in Russian iirc, possible some forum member have link. I know there are other factors of plane performance than thrust to weight ratio, but data like propulsion system efficiency would be nice addition, it could bring us closer to belive current M2k FM is actully realistic and people like me can hide in holes they came from :), but for now, sorry, there is very little data about M2k performance and it's mostly against common wisdom. I m not saying Razbam model is bad, I just dont know, maybe it's best modelled FM in DCS, but given uncertanity regarding topic, i m very sceptical, essspecially given how many FM changes M2k module had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being skeptical is a good thing. We have the duty to be skeptical on any non sourced anonymous user input on a forum (that's why I am now), especially given how DCS users are emotional about things. Mirage 2000 data is classified, so you will not get any figures on this forum.

9 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

FC3 Mig 29 FM is good enaugh to be used in future FF Mig 29, it was recent ED employe statemant,

Then please give the same attention to the following statement by someone from RAZBAM (me) "The M-2000C FM is good enough to be used in current FF module"

If both FMs are good, the +30% afterburner thrust increase between M53-5 and M53-P2 might explain a lot of things.

Thanks...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...